Excellent discussion on the nature of scripture. I so appreciate the good work of Jason and the amazing contributions to my biblical understanding by N. T. Wright. How I would love to have a cup of tea with the man- either of them.
It's notable that both ignore the Scripture's command that excludes women from positions of authority & the historicity of Genesis 1-11. In other words, they only accept Scripture if it agrees with their opinion.
@@martinploughboy988 The real challenge is the "commands" excluding women and the evidence in Acts and in Paul's letters that women definitely held leadership positions in the church. That's the issue that needs balancing. Personally I will always lean toward the equality of male and female as pictured in Gen 1 & 2 and Galatians 3:28. Especially as this "doctrine of leadership" is not an essential of the Faith.
@@skipcadorette5077 Genesis 1 & 2 show that men & women have different roles, it isn't about equality. Salvation, which is what Gal 3:28 is talking about, is about equality.. There is no evidence that women held leadership positions in either Acts or Paul's letters. Since we have a direct command & the churches that have given women positions of authority have failed to uphold the faith, it is more essential than you think.
C.S. Lewis hated the description "inerrant" too... It really comes down to your definition and what intellectual baggage is being assumed in the terminology. Certainly Bishop Wright is not trying to deny the authority of the scriptures. And he is adamant on the centrality of the resurrection of Christ to the Christian religion -- so whatever his opinion on the mechanics of Biblical authority, he's thoroughly in good company.
@@graysonguinn1943 The content is perfectly clear, a six day Creation ~6000 years ago followed by a global flood which destroyed all land based life except for that on the Ark.
The problem with appealing to Jesus as a way of getting around inerrancy is that Jesus himself contradicts you Dr. Wright. In order to refute the false doctrine of the Sadducees and therefore prove the truth of the doctrine of eternal life, Jesus doesn't merely rely on an Old Testament book being inerrant, nor an Old Testament chapter being inerrant, nor a verse, nor even a word. Jesus relies on the tense of a verb being inerrant ("am" not "was" Matt. 22:32) ! The tense of the verb refutes the Sadducees and proves the truth of eternal life. If that's not proof that Jesus believed that not only every word but even every verb tense is inerrant I don't know what does.
@@glowmentor That's not his only error. He says at 11:55 : "You see in the Bible itself the phrase the Word of God doesn't refer to the Bible. The the primary Word of God is Jesus". (i) They are not mutually exclusive. The bible is the written expression of the Word. Both (the bible and Jesus) are therefore correctly called the Word of God. (ii) He's simply wrong. Has he never read the bible ? The bible does refer to itself as the Word of God Jesus refers to his bible (the Old Testament) as the Word of God, Matt. 15:6 : "....They are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition". And Paul calls the bible both the sword of the Spirit and the Word of God, Ephesians 6 :17 "Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God". For a doctor he's very ignorant.
@@vngelicath1580 Jesus refers to his written bible (our Old Testament) as the Word of God. That's the Word of God incarnate calling those writings the Word of God. That'll do for me.
NT: "How do we know about God? We know about God by looking at Jesus. Yes, and we know about Jesus by looking at scripture." Me: And how do we know about scripture?
I wasn’t aware that Thomas Jefferson removed trunks of the Bible. Is there more available information to find out what part of the Bible he removed? Thank you.
He created "The Jefferson Bible". He had no intention of it being published as it was for his private use. He mentions it in a letter to Benjamin Rush(if I remember correctly). If you haven't read them, the letters between Jefferson and Rush and Jefferson and Adams are fascinating reads. They can be found in the US archives online. Excerpt: Adams to Jefferson January 23, 1825 "We think ourselves possessed-or at least we boast that we are so-of Liberty of conscience on all subjects and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact. There exists I believe throughout the whole Christian world a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or to doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the old and new Testaments from Genesis to Revelations...in America it is not much better, even in our Massachusetts…A law was made in the latter end of the last century repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the old Testament or new...I think such laws a great embarassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. The substance and essence of Christianity as I understand it is eternal and unchangeable and will bear examination forever but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination and they ought to be separated."
I would not waste too much time with Greek/hevrew etc Just get a King James Bible and trust what it says in English is correct The key is to desire truth God can lead you into it if your willing . Not everyone is The key is not to play with your food , just eat it (read it consistently) and God will guide you and give revelation You could get ten Greek scholars to pick about the bible and come about with ten different things and all be convinced they are right and have convincing arguments why they are right. If you really want answers you can fast and pray . That demonstrates to yourself and God how much you really do want the truth of a matter and not what is comfortable or popular . God has spoken to me many times
I actually find Wright rather shifty, because he will just find every issue a beautiful accident. It will just all be fine in the end, and it’s far more theological and faith based than some kind of historical document. Clearly he thinks it’s from God, so the issue falls on the reader, never on the book. Comes across as a utilitarian as well, as he thinks it’s a useful tool that changes lives, but really has nothing to do with accuracy.
One of the big sticking points is the Messopotamian creation story that we find in Genesis 2 & 3. Genesis 1 is different and is even said to be by a different writer. Pretty simple archeology proves that there were a lot of people living in Mesopotamia in 4,004 BCE. Adam and Eve couldn't have possibly been the only two people living on the earth at that time. There is also the question of where Cain's wife came from. It has been suggested that Adam and Eve were the first known ancestors of the Abrahamic lineages and that the depiction of God in these passages could be seen as indicative of some kind of king or monarch. Anyways, the question is how do we get around or deal with the Mesopotamian creation story in Genesis 2 & 3? One can look at the fact that Jesus was a Jew. Therefore we have the Jewish creation story(s) at the beginning of our faith story. If he had been born Egyptian or Greek we would have one of their creation stories at the beginning. If he had been born in Cornwall we would have the Cornish creation story. This still leaves some questions unanswered, however.
@@martinploughboy988 - You are starting with another baseless presupposition. Provide some evidence for your claim that a god spoke anything and that the bible is not purely man made.
The motivation for the census was to understand the state of affairs after Herod Archelaus had been deposed, so the idea of a census BEFORE the year 6 CE makes no sense, and the census after that was in Judea, not Galilee. Herod Antipas ruled in Galilee from 6 to 36 CE. There is no record of a Roman census there at this time, and no reason for a census. So the answer to Tom Wright's question is no, we can not trust the Bible.
The compilation is full of historical and compatibility errors but just like the epic of Gilgamesh, it starts off with ignorance and brutal recklessness and follows a saga to realisation that ones actions in this world are our legacy. Even Harry Potter and Spiderman have motifs we can grow from.
Before the KJV, there were two prominent bibles and something of a division, the bishops bible, Geneva bible. About 50 translators in groups of scholars translated it. There was already a Comitee discussing the need for an accurate translation without the known biases of the existing ones. King James funded and oversaw the process but apparently left them overwhelmingly to it. It is seen to this day by scholars as unbiased but not perfect, notably more recent textural knowledge based on things like the Dead Sea scrolls have made minor changes, hence the ‘new KJV’ and similar translations like the ESV. King James was known to be a Christian and have high regard for scripture. There is some writing of his as a boy on the wall of edinburgh castle to that effect.
@@jamesmaybury7452 Apparently King James insisted that Tyndale's 'overseers' be restored to 'bishop' and Tyndale's 'love' in 1 Cor 13 be restored to 'charity'. One of the major issues with the KJV is the way in which it persistently creates hierarchies where they do not exist. eg "(Acts 20:28 KJV) Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." There is no way that the Greek preposition 'en' can be translated 'over'.
What's Paul got to do with a mistake in the gospel of Mark (about 8 mins in)?? More generally, there is a failure to grapple with the serious problems with the New Testament, such as the incompatibilities between the birth narrratives (no time for flight to Egypt in Luke's) and post-resurrection narratives (disciples go to Galilee vs stay in Jerusalem) in Matthew and Luke, and the disagreement between the synoptics and John about the crucifixion, whether the Passover was Friday or Saturday.
All those questions are perfectly addressed in the section of discussion about how ancient biographers wrote- which is not much different from the way we do.
@@skipcadorette5077 Hi Skip. On second thoughts, I realise that you may have missed the point of my question. Briefly, if the gospel writers altered details, inserted miracle stories and generally made stuff up in the style of ancient biography (ancient biographies include miraculous events like Romulus being taken up to heaven, miracles attributed to Caesars etc) then how do we know that any factual event recorded in the gospels actually happened? In particular, how do we know that Jesus was raised bodily from the dead, that the stories of him eating and being touched were not just made up by the writers of Luke and John?
There are no incompatibilities in the birth narratives.The writers had different audiences in mind & if, as I have seen suggested, Luke was writing for a Roman court, in defence of Paul, to have mentioned Herod & the escape to Egypt might have been unwise.
@@martinploughboy988 Hi Martin. Have you studied them side by side, and tried to fit them together? There is no time for a flight to Egypt, lasting probably several years in total, during the time of Mary’s purification (30 days). Moreover Luke has them going to Jerusalem straight after Mary’s purification, whereas Matthew has them going straight to Galilee from Egypt, explicitly saying that they avoided Jerusalem. When I take these inconsistencies up with people online, the only viable response has been that Matt 2 is about a later period, a sort of ‘toddler narrative’! This is just one of many problems I have found in the NT, which have led me to conclude that the Bible, far from being inerrant, is a collection of human documents. I look forward to your reply.
An empty wagon makes a lot of noise. He wearies me so. Now and then I check in here or there to see if Wright is still Wright, and I find he is. Someone once said that N.T. Wright could write a 500-page book on how to boil water.
N T Wright may be a scholar but he is not to be trusted in what he is saying here. The doctrine of infallibility is derived from scripture itself. "ALL scripture is God breathed says Paul in 2 Timothy 3. If God breathed out scripture and God cannot lie then his word must be free from error and be authoritative. Jesus asked when referring to scripture "have you not read what was spoken to you by God?" in Matthew 22:31. He also said "the scripture cannot be broken" in John 10:35. Scripture is much more than some feel good story that God wanted us to have. It is God breathed revelation and is absolutely authoritative in matters of doctrine. All of it is God breathed. It is useful for correction. It leaves the man of God fully equipped for every good work - it is sufficient. It is alive and powerful and life giving and faith producing.
I agree. I don’t think it’s a story for us to take with us. What does that even mean? I’m now going back to listen to check if that’s what he said, because I find it rather woolly to grasp. Aah. NO, not quite, I think he said if this is the true story what’s it doing in and through me in the world. Or something like that. Still woolly! Mind you I find abiding a bit difficult to interpret too. Stay with, live out. That could be a story I suppose. We have to acknowledge though that the inspired accuracy lay in the originals, which are lost, and were translated more than once to come to us. Yet they came to us because God promised. So we have translated meaning not exactness, so that is a story. When I find red flags I ask myself what I haven’t understood, because I assume it’s correct and so, maybe I or the translator have got it wrong, or indeed the current interpretation, knowledge of idium etc. We are learning more and more about what the biblical times’ cultures were about, and not to look at things with our western eyes, so that’s also fair enough to ask about. I’ve found a big hole once, nearly fell in, where I’d taken what I thought it said literally and made a grave error. I needed help from a Greek scholar to unpick the Greek tenses for me, at which point I could see I’d got myself tied in knots. We don’t all know a Greek scholar! Another danger of literal interpretation is to take a description of what happened and assume it’s what God wanted to happen, or to assume the reasons for xy or z are the same for you, especially when applying OT Jewish law to us gentiles. I like to assume it’s literal first, but remember context context context. Just my few cents worth.
@@deivathayasweetlin3587 He gave a politicians answer. He doesn't believe in infallibility. That means he believes that scripture is fallible - that it can and does get things wrong in places. If scripture is fallible then it can't all be inspired by God, there must be some parts that he didn't inspire. Then you're in a position of reading your Bible and either doubting it or choosing not to believe the parts you don't like. NT Wright also does not believe in penal substitutionary atonement and he doesn't believe in justification by faith alone either. However smart he may be, and however well respected he is as a scholar he has undermined confidence in key scriptural doctrines. If you're a liberal in the Church of England, maybe you don't see that as a problem. As an Evangelical, I do see it as a problem.
No? Why would you think that’s the case? Does the Psalmist explicitly say that it increases its velocity? Or is this poetic, seeing as most of things in psalms is?
They are good for propping up a table, if one leg is shorter than the others, to stand on to reach a high shelf, I can`t really think of any thing else.
The other good reason , is to keep silly folks like you, who struggle to think , as you say, get clarity on what you have to do, to make it to the next level when departing from your tent, which will leave you in a vertical free fall shoul u not have paid attention to that manual especially John 3 v1-7 and grasped it's complex simple information for dummies.
"The Word of God" is an advertising slogan..not meant to be the actual word of God, "Things go better with Coke" is another successful advertising slogan. I like "The nicest people ride a Honda"...amen
Dr. N.T. Wright is a master of the Scriptures, but he fails to notice that the events of the bible took place at a time when science was still very archaic. Let me use the ascension as an example: Part 1: DID JESUS GET CHILLED WHEN HE WAS TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN??? WAS HE FROZEN AT 7500 FEET??? “Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory/theology which you use.” (Albert Einstein) Anyone who understands (a) that the atmospheric gasses surrounding our Earth thin out as one increases in elevation and (b) that, with the reduction in air pressure, the perceived temperature falls at approximately 5 degrees Fahrenheit for every thousand feet, knows that the writer of Acts was entirely oblivious of this. If he were aware of this phenomenon, then he would never have allowed that “Jesus . . . has been taken up from you into heaven [on a cloud]” (Acts 1:11). For this to have happened, Jesus would first suffer from oxygen deprivation. At the same time, Jesus would also suffer from dropping temperatures. This is why those who climb Mt. Everest (29,000 ft. elevation) have to protect themselves from the thinning air and the sub-zero temperatures. For the writer of Acts and for his readers at the time as well, these dangers were entirely non-existent because they had no understanding of the Earth’s atmosphere that would have made such hazards apparent. Nor did they have mountain climbers or sufficiently tall mountains to make these effects apparent to them. Mt. Sinai is 7500 feet above sea level. If Moses had climbed to the top, he would have noted that the temperature was noticeably cooler (by 38 degrees). When I hiked 7.2 miles down into the Grand Canyon from the North rim, I began at 6 p.m. and arrived at 8:35 p.m. As I moved, I distinctly noticed that the air became warmer. Since the sun was setting, you might ordinarily think that the temperature should become cooler. True, the temperature at the rim was falling. But, for every 1000 feet I descended, I was gaining five degrees in temperature (which exceeded the cooling effect due to the setting of the sun). For the last three miles, the heat was stifling. I stripped down to my swim suit. I was covered with sweat. At the banks of the Colorado River, I had descended 5500 feet below my starting point, and the air temperature was 28 degrees higher due to the elevation effect. From this experience, I can safely suggest that Moses did not go to the top of Mt. Sinai in a single day. Given that he was 80 years old at the time, I would be surprised if he went up more than two thousand feet. A temperature change of 10 degrees could be seen as normal, especial because he was a slow climber. When I descended into the Canyon, I was quite fit and 32 years old. I was also descending on a well-worn switch-back trail that made my progress even easier. This thought experiment was done by way of illustrating why the temperature effect and the change of air pressure went unnoticed during the entire biblical period. Thus, it was entirely normal that no one was worried about Jesus when he was taken up on a cloud into heaven (Acts 1:11). When these texts are read today by scientifically-informed readers, it is only natural that concerns about Jesus’ safety will arise. "Poor Jesus," my twelve-year-old daughter says to me, "he must have been frozen solid before he got to 7500 feet." Part 2: Was Jesus using a cloud-taxi during his ascension? "Every belief works in the mind of the believer" (Michael Polanyi). The biblical writers see clouds as God’s swift chariot (cf. also Ps. 18:9; 104:3; Isa. 19:1; Dan. 7:13; Nah. 1:3; 1 Thess. 4:17). If we stop to reflect on this, we can imagine that people who never had the opportunity to fly in an airplane as it passed near or through clouds might easily be persuaded that clouds were quite substantial and easily able to transport their passengers. When meeting with Moses on Mount Sinai, God uses a cloud to hide himself from Moses, lest he see his face and die (Exod 33:19-20). The tacit assumption here is that God uses a cloud to travel from his throne in heaven to Mount Sinai. Cloaked in the same cloud, God hides his face. Likewise, when Jesus’ return is mentioned elsewhere, he is presenting as making use of cloud-transport (Matt. 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27; 1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 1:7). This thought experiment was done by way of illustrating how archaic science undergirds the events of the bible. Even God and Jesus had to make use of cloud-taxis. When we read the bible on a transatlantic flight, we never think of how our Boeing 747 cuts right through clouds. The biblical translators had no idea how to get the archaic science out of these texts. So, what did they do? They kept the archaic "swift chariots" just as the ancient text would have it and they hoped that no one would notice how "scientifically absurd" they were being. My twelve-year old daughter says to me, "Poor Jesus! He's up to 5000 feet when he notices that there are only whisps of water vapor supporting him. He immediately gets pulled toward the earth in a free-fall. Yipes! Get him a parachute." ====================================================== I love N.T. Wright and entirely support his reading of Scripture. Wright is not the problem here. The problem is that modern science grew up outside of the seminaries and theological think-tanks. No one thought that modern science had to be taken into account when interpreting the bible. So, my two case studies show how hasardous this approach has become today. Just imagine how some atheist like Richard Dawkins would make mince-meat out of my beloved N.T. Wright just using the two case studies suggested above. This cannot be SOLVED by using a few slick slogans (such as "Put Jesus at the Center, and everything else fits perfectly around Him....) N.T. Wright, I'm calling you to get deeper and to go further on this issue. If you can't do it, I'm afraid no one else can. JMJ, pray for us, Aaron Milavec
Similar in some important respects, not identical; but that was the last objection of CS Lewis before he converted to Christianity. He finally flipped it around and realized two things: Why should it be that we find people all over the world, without contact to each other, coming up with such similar stories when see describing the ultimate reality and purpose to the world? Isn't that evidence FOR the story in question being a reflection of deep reality rather than evidence that all the stories are false? And 2nd, he came to believe that unlike the others, Jesus was a real man in real history (no, surprisingly the others do not make this claim) and that He (Jesus) was "the dream" come true. God created man and therefore the dream of Reality is in us. But in Jesus, God became man and realized the dream so that we could see Him as a man.
@@Brucec-x6r I'm afraid there are none. There are many stories of dying and rising gods or demigods. None identical. And maybe you should be asking why there are so many of these stories? Why is it that this idea , or dream as CS Lewis called them, would come up all over the globe and all throughout history in cultures without contact?
Time doesn’t change truth Talking serpent not snake . And a taking donkey. Parrots can talk by the way . I tend to think the serpent and donkey were supernatural (which the bible is full of) Actually talking snakes should be supported by evolution, are we not talking apes ? But wait , why are there no apes that can talk ? Hmm The bible does not mention an apple , a mistake made by people who have not read the Bible or paid attention. It says fruit . And Adam and Eve made aprons out of fig leaves so that might be a clue but it might not , the bible doesn’t say . Where did God fail ? He gave freewill , it’s up to us to use it correctly, otherwise you have to make robots that can’t love What you can trust is God Himself . He will reveal Himself personally to you once you repent and put your faith in His Son Then once you KNOW God personally you will trust his Words , character and integrity
An intriguing statement about the fate of non-believers in Surah An-Nisa 4.56. However, more intriguing is Surah (ch.) 4.157: "...and for boasting, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they [the Jewish leaders] neither killed nor crucified him-it was only made to appear so.(note 1) Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever-only making assumptions. They certainly did not kill him." Note 1 does not disclose the real reason for the claims that Jesus was spared crucifixion. But, in the commentary on the Quran, it is JUDAS who is crucified--not Jesus. Even in Islamic doctrine, Jesus is taken up into the heavens by God (although spared from being killed). So whether Jesus did die and rise again, or spared from death: in both cases He is taken up into the heavens. In both the NT and Quran, Jesus is claimed to the the Word of God (Arabic: kalimatu-Allah), and will return to judge the world. 🙂
The Bible is full of contradictions, archeological and historical inaccuracies, and logical fallacies. It’s a nice book, it cannot be taken literally. Since it can’t be taken literally, it is open to interpretation and is therefore fallible.
@@vngelicath1580 True, but you need to read the passages in the way they were meant to be read & Genesis 1-11 is, like the rest of the book, historical narrative.
My favourite infallible part of the New Testament is the dedication at the start of Luke. He sarcastically states that he's writing his gospel because the other gospels are innacurate. Sort of like a Zen Kone. Bring me the sound of one fundamentalist crying ...
I thought Luke was saying he writing an ‘orderly account’, in other words, sequential rather than thematic. Where do you get the concept of ‘inaccurate’. Are there places in Luke where you would say he writes something different and is bringing an ‘accurate’ correction to Matthew or Mark?
i have a high view of Shakespeare plays...are they infallible or even accurate..answer : Not likely. Same for the bible which was cobbled together by various catholic clergy one thousand years earlier. (more or less)
Stop interrupting Tom's answers. It's not about the moderator. Often Tom ties up his point and just before finishing, another question or comment is offered.
Correct: if one trusts the Bible and one trusts Lord of the Rings--meaning they are real products, have physical copies, and have movies about said subjects--then perhaps one is a fan of both. And the question is...?
I respect and study the bible but why doesn't anyone explain the contradictions in Jesus actual teachings in the Gospels. Depending which gospel Jesus wants his disciples to follow the Torah and in others he clearly doesn't or he cherry picks
How about you name a single contradiction? Because the example you listed doesn't sound like a contradiction at all. Jesus didn't come to abolish the old ways, he preached the ten commandments and fulfilled the old prophecies. But the Jewish people had become too asinine about the codes, following them to the letter instead of understanding their purpose, eg. chastising Jesus for a minimal amount of work on the Sabbath.
@@conorowens8382 lol what do you actually think there are only ten commandments? He actually didn't fulfil the prophecy of Isiah the Messiah was supposed to become king. Just compare Mark to Luke or John you get completely different messages from Jesus. By the Jewish people I assume you mean the Pharisees because Jesus was Jewish and his disciples and all the original Christians.
@@RichardGeresGerbil when did I say there were only ten commandments in the Old Testament? I was clearly referring to the famous commandments outlined in Exodus and Deuteronomy, commonly known as the ten commandments (despite the fact you could technically count them a number of different ways). Stop being so pedantic, it doesn't make you look smarter. And yes, obviously Jesus and his disciples were Jewish. When did I ever suggest otherwise? Again, you're acting like I said something contradictory to compensate for the lack of an actual argument. You keep saying there were massive contradictions in what Jesus said. So again I ask you, how about you name a single specific one?
@@Linalo18 are you serious come on you found nothing? Jesus preaches to follow Moses law better than the Pharisees in one gospel then undermines many of the laws in the others. There are so many stupid contradictions like when did Jesus die I give you a hint before or after passover I'm genuinely curious
Saying the Bible is inerrant isn't defensive, it is stating the fact. The Bible is the words of God, God is speaking. Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative, it is six days of Creation, repeated in Exodus 20. I would question how Wright believes the resurrection if Genesis isn't correct. I'm afraid NT Wright is simply unreliable as a Bible teacher, just as so many CoE clergy are influenced by the spirit of the age.
What does Genesis have to do with the resurrection? Genesis could be entirely mythical (it almost certainly is) and man still be fallen and need a savior. Your argument doesn’t follow.
I’m afraid you’re simply uneducated and incorrect. There’s almost absolutely no way of studying Genesis in depth and coming out thinking the ancient author is trying to give us a historical scientific account of material creation. You’ve lost your mind. I’m a Christian Btw
@@EchoP7596 Without Genesis you do not have the basis for God's authority, or the explanation as to why Man needs salvation & hence the resurrection. Genesis is the foundation of Christianity, you cannot be a Christian without it, it certainly isn't mythical.
@@vngelicath1580 Accepting the whole of the Bible tests your orthodoxy, rather than relying on pseudoscience. How can you believe in the Resurrection without believing God's description of His Creation, and without the Fall there is no need for the resurrection.
We can trust the Holy Bible KJV, the NT truth as witness to all OT prophecy fulfilled, but we cannot trust Christianity which is the false teaching mentioned by Paul.
@@martinploughboy988 There was no atonement at the Cross though Christianity has many theories, the NT was witness to all prophecy fulfilled there is no futurism, there was no 'Original Sin', like Judaism and Islam, Christianity is not legitimate as it does not follow the Torah of Abraham. Paul spends his time preaching the gospel of salvation and the Torah of Abraham, to so-called believers who thought grace was a licence to sin. Christianity was already being falsely taught, as Paul did not start Christianity, he spoke that only doers of the law shall be justified. It's fascinating stuff all in my draft book, but offering 30 videos breaking down false teaching subject by subject.
@@simonskinner1450 What a load of twaddle. Paul makes it perfectly clear to believers that God's grace isn't a licence to sin: What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? (Romans 6:1-2) Of course the Torah was written by Moses, not Abraham.
@@martinploughboy988 yes Paul makes it clear they must not sin to those following s false gospel, but Christianity many believe Jesus paid for their sins, being under grace not the jurisdiction of the law. The Torah was given to Abraham in the religion of the Israelites, an amended version was given to Moses due to sin, as you will find Genesis is in the Torah but Moses is not in Genesis.
@@simonskinner1450 So where is the evidence that "Torah was given to Abraham"? The Torah comprises the first five books, & Moses is certainly in those. So what do you think the true gospel is, how is someone made righteous before God.
@@Aquines "So sorry that is how you feel, advice be open minded but don’t leave your brain at the door" My mind is always open to falsifiable evidence. It also recognises absurd claims when it encounters them.
Your a rather dim fellow. The old testament was well documented and copies into Greek and Latin from the Aramaic Hebrew scrolls available. Even Jesus quoted scriptures and characters from them.
@Minimmalmythicist Only a foolish person who knows little of the facts would say that. What is interesting though, is you didn't say how much later, nor by who, and your sarcasm is ridiculous. Keep this in mind, the gospels were pre 70 AD, so were some of the letters acts going forward. The temples destruction by Titus, prophecy by Jesus within 40 years, a generation not passing , and believers fleeing Jerusalem to the mountains, not going back into homes to pack up as warned when news of the Romans coming. They got the memo, it was faxed. Emailed and set in stone.
The problem with Wright's religious views is that they are merely opinion. As valid as any other, of course, but neither truth nor fact. With one negative exception. Any claim of infallibility for the bible is simply false. We can and have proven that. Wright is smart enough to know this but he chooses not to allow reality to interfere with his beliefs. That's his choice and his right but when trying to convince others, it is dishonest to pretend beliefs are facts.
@Minimmalmythicist Not really sure what Christianity offers that cant be found elsewhere, without the necessity to believe the impossible without evidence, but I do think there is much to be found in the bible once we stop pretending it is the word of God. No moral guidance of course and certainly nothing true in the earlier myths but literature, an insight into how men thought back then and a tiny amount of history in the later stories. We can even see hints of the socio-political climates of the various times covered by authors that caused the compilation and writing of the Hebrew bible.
The one fact that is thoroughly clear, is that you, like sooooo many others, have not faith, so may not be called since b4 the foundations of the earth by name. Sadly, here's my commiserations , have an 🎉.😂.
@@SteveWarlee I thank you for your commiserations. Unfortunately, you cannot show that what you have faith in is true. To not have faith is merely to say, show me the evidence. Why is that wrong? Why would your God create a reality with no clear indications of his presence and then hide from us? And why would he then condemn us for not believing because he is so good at hiding? Does that make any sense to you? It seems like the unjust action of tyrant to me. If it were true.
Christianity is not legitimate as it is the false teaching in the epistles, and divorced the Torah of Abraham. I have Ytube videos 'Myths in so-called Christianity'.
Hebrews 8:8-13 CSB But finding fault with his people, he says: See, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah - not like the covenant that I made with their ancestors on the day I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. I showed no concern for them, says the Lord, because they did not continue in my covenant.] For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. And each person will not teach his fellow citizen, and each his brother or sister, saying, “Know the Lord,” because they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them. For I will forgive their wrongdoing, and I will never again remember their sins. By saying a new covenant, he has declared that the first is obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old is about to pass away. God tears the veil in the temple at Christ's death and then a short 3 decades later destroys the temple. Access to God is through Christ, not Judaism
@@acts-me8xr The NT has the truth, but Christianity does not, please note Paul complained of false teaching, well he was talking about Christianity. I am CofE but find the Reformation was Gnostic, and not much better before, but we do have Jesus, Paul and John to fall back on. My videos break down the false teachings one by one. It is interesting that you deny Judaism but God's laws remain, and those actually baptised have the laws in their hearts, not to recite but to argue in their consciences. Paul says born again believers are born again Jews, so did Jesus, the new covenant is the fulfilment of the covenants of Abraham and Moses.
@@simonskinner1450 Paul complaining about the false teaching was actually specifically in regards to Jews who were trying to water down the gospel by saying that not only did a person have to believe the gospel but they had to follow all of the Old testament ceremonial laws to be right with God. Circumcision was being one of them. Romans chapter 10 verse 4 says "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes, " Christ himself said he did not come to nullify the law but rather he is the fulfillment of it. For the person who is in Christ Jesus the righteousness of the law has been perfected by the finished work of Jesus. So the Old testament is by no means done away with for the Christian believer rather the Old testament is done away with in terms of trying to be made right with God through it and keeping it. The New testament makes it clear that the law was given as a schoolmaster to point us to our need of Christ. The law was given to show us our sinfulness not so that we can follow it to be justified before God. The only one who has or will ever follow the law perfectly is Jesus Christ and that is why sinners like us need him. I believe that the whole book of Hebrews is written for this very reason. To show how the New covenant is better than the old covenant and how it makes it obsolete. It also points to how Jesus is the fulfillment of all of the Old testament promises as well as the keeping of the law perfectly. As far as born again believers being considered Jews on fine with that. Because I believe the Bible makes it clear that there has been one people of God throughout the both old and New testament. The Bible says that a person is not a Jew because of ethnicity but rather because of the circumcision of the heart, which is another way of saying a person that has been born again by the power of the Holy Spirit. I believe dispensationalism where they try to distinctly separate Israel from the church is grossly incorrect and causes not only a division of God's people through the Old and New testament but also they take it to the extent sometimes even to say that the gospel of Paul is different from the gospel of Jesus and the kingdom of God is different from the kingdom of heaven etc.
Thank you NT Wright
We really need new seasons of Ask NT Wright anything!😍
Excellent discussion on the nature of scripture. I so appreciate the good work of Jason and the amazing contributions to my biblical understanding by N. T. Wright. How I would love to have a cup of tea with the man- either of them.
It's notable that both ignore the Scripture's command that excludes women from positions of authority & the historicity of Genesis 1-11. In other words, they only accept Scripture if it agrees with their opinion.
@@martinploughboy988 The real challenge is the "commands" excluding women and the evidence in Acts and in Paul's letters that women definitely held leadership positions in the church.
That's the issue that needs balancing.
Personally I will always lean toward the equality of male and female as pictured in Gen 1 & 2 and Galatians 3:28. Especially as this "doctrine of leadership" is not an essential of the Faith.
@@skipcadorette5077 Genesis 1 & 2 show that men & women have different roles, it isn't about equality. Salvation, which is what Gal 3:28 is talking about, is about equality.. There is no evidence that women held leadership positions in either Acts or Paul's letters.
Since we have a direct command & the churches that have given women positions of authority have failed to uphold the faith, it is more essential than you think.
C.S. Lewis hated the description "inerrant" too...
It really comes down to your definition and what intellectual baggage is being assumed in the terminology. Certainly Bishop Wright is not trying to deny the authority of the scriptures. And he is adamant on the centrality of the resurrection of Christ to the Christian religion -- so whatever his opinion on the mechanics of Biblical authority, he's thoroughly in good company.
But effectively he is denying the authority of Scripture, as is anyone else who denies the historicity of Genesis 1-11.
@@martinploughboy988thus spoke the great prophet ken ham
@@graysonguinn1943 Many people have pointed out what the Bible says. If you don't accept what the Bible says, how can you be a Christian?
@@martinploughboy988 the issue isn’t believing the Bible, since the content of what is teaching is what’s in dispute not its authority
@@graysonguinn1943 The content is perfectly clear, a six day Creation ~6000 years ago followed by a global flood which destroyed all land based life except for that on the Ark.
Is there a place to submit questions to NT Wright?
Great questions and answers 👍🏻!! Thanks for producing thought provoking content like this.
The problem with appealing to Jesus as a way of getting around inerrancy is that Jesus himself contradicts you Dr. Wright.
In order to refute the false doctrine of the Sadducees and therefore prove the truth of the doctrine of eternal life, Jesus doesn't merely rely on an Old Testament book being inerrant, nor an Old Testament chapter being inerrant, nor a verse, nor even a word. Jesus relies on the tense of a verb being inerrant ("am" not "was" Matt. 22:32) !
The tense of the verb refutes the Sadducees and proves the truth of eternal life.
If that's not proof that Jesus believed that not only every word but even every verb tense is inerrant I don't know what does.
Brilliant. Bravo. I’m not convinced by NTW.
@@glowmentor That's not his only error. He says at 11:55 :
"You see in the Bible itself the phrase the Word of God doesn't refer to the Bible. The the primary Word of God is Jesus".
(i) They are not mutually exclusive. The bible is the written expression of the Word. Both (the bible and Jesus) are therefore correctly called the Word of God.
(ii) He's simply wrong. Has he never read the bible ?
The bible does refer to itself as the Word of God
Jesus refers to his bible (the Old Testament) as the Word of God, Matt. 15:6 :
"....They are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition".
And Paul calls the bible both the sword of the Spirit and the Word of God, Ephesians 6 :17
"Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God".
For a doctor he's very ignorant.
@@soloscripturaThe Bible is the "Word of God written" in a derived sense from the proper sense being the incarnate Word of God.
Yes, Jesus believed in "truth" like we do, not like Prof. Wright wishes He did.
@@vngelicath1580 Jesus refers to his written bible (our Old Testament) as the Word of God. That's the Word of God incarnate calling those writings the Word of God. That'll do for me.
How is NT Wright's position different to Barth?
This is fantastic!
This was helpful!
"Have you not read what was spoken to you by God..." --- Jesus
NT: "How do we know about God? We know about God by looking at Jesus. Yes, and we know about Jesus by looking at scripture."
Me: And how do we know about scripture?
Another great episode Justin.
Dr. Donald Lake, Wheaton College, proposed in the 1980/1981 academic year that the Bible is inerrant in what it intends to teach.
Doubt is in the order of decision or existence. Difficulty is in the order of intelligence.
I wasn’t aware that Thomas Jefferson removed trunks of the Bible. Is there more available information to find out what part of the Bible he removed? Thank you.
He created "The Jefferson Bible". He had no intention of it being published as it was for his private use. He mentions it in a letter to Benjamin Rush(if I remember correctly). If you haven't read them, the letters between Jefferson and Rush and Jefferson and Adams are fascinating reads. They can be found in the US archives online.
Excerpt:
Adams to Jefferson January 23, 1825
"We think ourselves possessed-or at least we boast that we are so-of Liberty of conscience on all subjects and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact. There exists I believe throughout the whole Christian world a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or to doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the old and new Testaments from Genesis to Revelations...in America it is not much better, even in our Massachusetts…A law was made in the latter end of the last century repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the old Testament or new...I think such laws a great embarassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. The substance and essence of Christianity as I understand it is eternal and unchangeable and will bear examination forever but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination and they ought to be separated."
How can I know which Hebrew Greek and translated texts are precise and accurate?
It is an old question,
I would not waste too much time with Greek/hevrew etc
Just get a King James Bible and trust what it says in English is correct
The key is to desire truth
God can lead you into it if your willing . Not everyone is
The key is not to play with your food , just eat it (read it consistently) and God will guide you and give revelation
You could get ten Greek scholars to pick about the bible and come about with ten different things and all be convinced they are right and have convincing arguments why they are right.
If you really want answers you can fast and pray . That demonstrates to yourself and God how much you really do want the truth of a matter and not what is comfortable or popular . God has spoken to me many times
@@ourclarioncall I love it, it's my loved Bible, in portuguese I read , ACF. Spanish, I read Cipriano de Reina Valeira.
This is so insightful!
The question should be, I think. Can we trust you!
I actually find Wright rather shifty, because he will just find every issue a beautiful accident. It will just all be fine in the end, and it’s far more theological and faith based than some kind of historical document.
Clearly he thinks it’s from God, so the issue falls on the reader, never on the book. Comes across as a utilitarian as well, as he thinks it’s a useful tool that changes lives, but really has nothing to do with accuracy.
What about the Society of Jesus interfering with, Bible translation?
Please share more about this so-called Society of Jesus since it’s not a common group or expression.
The Society of Jesus aka Jesuits were started by Ignatius Loyola about 1540. Read Codeword Barbelon for a detailed history of the Jesuits.
Watch Tares Among the Wheat to see how the Jesuits influenced Bible translation
Why they didn't changed the sabbath in exodo 20?@@gregoryrice9998
One of the big sticking points is the Messopotamian creation story that we find in Genesis 2 & 3. Genesis 1 is different and is even said to be by a different writer. Pretty simple archeology proves that there were a lot of people living in Mesopotamia in 4,004 BCE. Adam and Eve couldn't have possibly been the only two people living on the earth at that time. There is also the question of where Cain's wife came from.
It has been suggested that Adam and Eve were the first known ancestors of the Abrahamic lineages and that the depiction of God in these passages could be seen as indicative of some kind of king or monarch.
Anyways, the question is how do we get around or deal with the Mesopotamian creation story in Genesis 2 & 3?
One can look at the fact that Jesus was a Jew. Therefore we have the Jewish creation story(s) at the beginning of our faith story. If he had been born Egyptian or Greek we would have one of their creation stories at the beginning. If he had been born in Cornwall we would have the Cornish creation story. This still leaves some questions unanswered, however.
Starting from a presupposition of infallibility just makes the whole exercise completely useless.
Would you expect what God has spoke to be other than infallible?
@@martinploughboy988 - You are starting with another baseless presupposition. Provide some evidence for your claim that a god spoke anything and that the bible is not purely man made.
@@StewpidGames Since you know God exists, why is it implausible that He should communicate with His creation?
@@martinploughboy988 - Another unsubstantiated presupposition. How do you know god exists?
@@StewpidGames Everyone knows God exists.
Premier Unbelievable?, You're awesome! Let's be friends, okay?
No, they undermine the faith.
What about the other christianties very different from the Pauline Christianity stuff?
There are no 'other christianities'.
not sola scriptura, but prima scriptura. In other words, when there is a dispute with tradition, the Bible has the authority.
❤
The motivation for the census was to understand the state of affairs after Herod Archelaus had been deposed, so the idea of a census BEFORE the year 6 CE makes no sense, and the census after that was in Judea, not Galilee. Herod Antipas ruled in Galilee from 6 to 36 CE. There is no record of a Roman census there at this time, and no reason for a census. So the answer to Tom Wright's question is no, we can not trust the Bible.
The compilation is full of historical and compatibility errors but just like the epic of Gilgamesh, it starts off with ignorance and brutal recklessness and follows a saga to realisation that ones actions in this world are our legacy.
Even Harry Potter and Spiderman have motifs we can grow from.
Why isn't cannibalism condemned in either the OT or the NT?
Absolutely
"truth depends on how you read the bible." Translation: I can make it mean whatever I like.
I was told that King James had the Bible re-written to benefit him as King. He did it for selfish reasons
Before the KJV, there were two prominent bibles and something of a division, the bishops bible, Geneva bible. About 50 translators in groups of scholars translated it. There was already a Comitee discussing the need for an accurate translation without the known biases of the existing ones. King James funded and oversaw the process but apparently left them overwhelmingly to it. It is seen to this day by scholars as unbiased but not perfect, notably more recent textural knowledge based on things like the Dead Sea scrolls have made minor changes, hence the ‘new KJV’ and similar translations like the ESV. King James was known to be a Christian and have high regard for scripture. There is some writing of his as a boy on the wall of edinburgh castle to that effect.
@@jamesmaybury7452 Apparently King James insisted that Tyndale's 'overseers' be restored to 'bishop' and Tyndale's 'love' in 1 Cor 13 be restored to 'charity'. One of the major issues with the KJV is the way in which it persistently creates hierarchies where they do not exist. eg "(Acts 20:28 KJV)
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." There is no way that the Greek preposition 'en' can be translated 'over'.
What's Paul got to do with a mistake in the gospel of Mark (about 8 mins in)?? More generally, there is a failure to grapple with the serious problems with the New Testament, such as the incompatibilities between the birth narrratives (no time for flight to Egypt in Luke's) and post-resurrection narratives (disciples go to Galilee vs stay in Jerusalem) in Matthew and Luke, and the disagreement between the synoptics and John about the crucifixion, whether the Passover was Friday or Saturday.
All those questions are perfectly addressed in the section of discussion about how ancient biographers wrote- which is not much different from the way we do.
@@skipcadorette5077 Thanks. I must have missed the points where they discuss these problems. Can you give the time stamps please?
@@skipcadorette5077 Hi Skip. On second thoughts, I realise that you may have missed the point of my question. Briefly, if the gospel writers altered details, inserted miracle stories and generally made stuff up in the style of ancient biography (ancient biographies include miraculous events like Romulus being taken up to heaven, miracles attributed to Caesars etc) then how do we know that any factual event recorded in the gospels actually happened?
In particular, how do we know that Jesus was raised bodily from the dead, that the stories of him eating and being touched were not just made up by the writers of Luke and John?
There are no incompatibilities in the birth narratives.The writers had different audiences in mind & if, as I have seen suggested, Luke was writing for a Roman court, in defence of Paul, to have mentioned Herod & the escape to Egypt might have been unwise.
@@martinploughboy988 Hi Martin. Have you studied them side by side, and tried to fit them together? There is no time for a flight to Egypt, lasting probably several years in total, during the time of Mary’s purification (30 days). Moreover Luke has them going to Jerusalem straight after Mary’s purification, whereas Matthew has them going straight to Galilee from Egypt, explicitly saying that they avoided Jerusalem.
When I take these inconsistencies up with people online, the only viable response has been that Matt 2 is about a later period, a sort of ‘toddler narrative’!
This is just one of many problems I have found in the NT, which have led me to conclude that the Bible, far from being inerrant, is a collection of human documents.
I look forward to your reply.
3Timothy 16-17..... can it be more clear than that?..
2 Timothy?
@@martinploughboy988 my err, I meant 2timothy 3:16..
@@martinploughboy988 my error, I punched in the the wrong number, my appologies.. it's 2timothy 3:16
Yes it can be more clear than that. When Timothy was written there was not New Testament canon yet.
@@CMA418 it's about the Spirit, Zechariah 4:6 as long as God rules, it's about the Spirit!
Watch Tares Among the Wheat to see how the Jesuits influenced Bible translation
An empty wagon makes a lot of noise. He wearies me so. Now and then I check in here or there to see if Wright is still Wright, and I find he is. Someone once said that N.T. Wright could write a 500-page book on how to boil water.
N T Wright may be a scholar but he is not to be trusted in what he is saying here. The doctrine of infallibility is derived from scripture itself. "ALL scripture is God breathed says Paul in 2 Timothy 3. If God breathed out scripture and God cannot lie then his word must be free from error and be authoritative. Jesus asked when referring to scripture "have you not read what was spoken to you by God?" in Matthew 22:31. He also said "the scripture cannot be broken" in John 10:35. Scripture is much more than some feel good story that God wanted us to have. It is God breathed revelation and is absolutely authoritative in matters of doctrine. All of it is God breathed. It is useful for correction. It leaves the man of God fully equipped for every good work - it is sufficient. It is alive and powerful and life giving and faith producing.
I agree. I don’t think it’s a story for us to take with us. What does that even mean? I’m now going back to listen to check if that’s what he said, because I find it rather woolly to grasp. Aah. NO, not quite, I think he said if this is the true story what’s it doing in and through me in the world. Or something like that. Still woolly! Mind you I find abiding a bit difficult to interpret too. Stay with, live out. That could be a story I suppose.
We have to acknowledge though that the inspired accuracy lay in the originals, which are lost, and were translated more than once to come to us. Yet they came to us because God promised. So we have translated meaning not exactness, so that is a story.
When I find red flags I ask myself what I haven’t understood, because I assume it’s correct and so, maybe I or the translator have got it wrong, or indeed the current interpretation, knowledge of idium etc. We are learning more and more about what the biblical times’ cultures were about, and not to look at things with our western eyes, so that’s also fair enough to ask about. I’ve found a big hole once, nearly fell in, where I’d taken what I thought it said literally and made a grave error. I needed help from a Greek scholar to unpick the Greek tenses for me, at which point I could see I’d got myself tied in knots. We don’t all know a Greek scholar! Another danger of literal interpretation is to take a description of what happened and assume it’s what God wanted to happen, or to assume the reasons for xy or z are the same for you, especially when applying OT Jewish law to us gentiles. I like to assume it’s literal first, but remember context context context. Just my few cents worth.
You have to listen one more time... He didn't say anything wrong against the Bible.
@@deivathayasweetlin3587 He gave a politicians answer. He doesn't believe in infallibility. That means he believes that scripture is fallible - that it can and does get things wrong in places. If scripture is fallible then it can't all be inspired by God, there must be some parts that he didn't inspire. Then you're in a position of reading your Bible and either doubting it or choosing not to believe the parts you don't like. NT Wright also does not believe in penal substitutionary atonement and he doesn't believe in justification by faith alone either. However smart he may be, and however well respected he is as a scholar he has undermined confidence in key scriptural doctrines. If you're a liberal in the Church of England, maybe you don't see that as a problem. As an Evangelical, I do see it as a problem.
For everyone who believes John 3:16, what are you haggling about? Seems very carnal to me. Proverbs 16:18
The Sun rises and the Sun sets, then increases its velocity to rise again?
No? Why would you think that’s the case? Does the Psalmist explicitly say that it increases its velocity? Or is this poetic, seeing as most of things in psalms is?
They are good for propping up a table, if one leg is shorter than the others, to stand on to reach a high shelf, I can`t really think of any thing else.
Actually all of your books at some time go there since you can’t read and are unable to afford a new table or a ladder.
The other good reason , is to keep silly folks like you, who struggle to think , as you say, get clarity on what you have to do, to make it to the next level when departing from your tent, which will leave you in a vertical free fall shoul u not have paid attention to that manual especially John 3 v1-7 and grasped it's complex simple information for dummies.
@@1754Me😂😂😂😂
@@1754Me oof that's a level of butthurt i thought unachievable..
@@1754Me lol a person who can't read but is capable of typing intelligible sentences. That's a funny trick
"The Word of God" is an advertising slogan..not meant to be the actual word of God, "Things go better with Coke" is another successful advertising slogan. I like "The nicest people ride a Honda"...amen
What a silly comment.
Dr. N.T. Wright is a master of the Scriptures, but he fails to notice that the events of the bible took place at a time when science was still very archaic. Let me use the ascension as an example:
Part 1: DID JESUS GET CHILLED WHEN HE WAS TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN??? WAS HE FROZEN AT 7500 FEET???
“Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory/theology which you use.” (Albert Einstein)
Anyone who understands (a) that the atmospheric gasses surrounding our Earth thin out as one increases in elevation and (b) that, with the reduction in air pressure, the perceived temperature falls at approximately 5 degrees Fahrenheit for every thousand feet, knows that the writer of Acts was entirely oblivious of this. If he were aware of this phenomenon, then he would never have allowed that “Jesus . . . has been taken up from you into heaven [on a cloud]” (Acts 1:11). For this to have happened, Jesus would first suffer from oxygen deprivation. At the same time, Jesus would also suffer from dropping temperatures. This is why those who climb Mt. Everest (29,000 ft. elevation) have to protect themselves from the thinning air and the sub-zero temperatures.
For the writer of Acts and for his readers at the time as well, these dangers were entirely non-existent because they had no understanding of the Earth’s atmosphere that would have made such hazards apparent. Nor did they have mountain climbers or sufficiently tall mountains to make these effects apparent to them. Mt. Sinai is 7500 feet above sea level. If Moses had climbed to the top, he would have noted that the temperature was noticeably cooler (by 38 degrees).
When I hiked 7.2 miles down into the Grand Canyon from the North rim, I began at 6 p.m. and arrived at 8:35 p.m. As I moved, I distinctly noticed that the air became warmer. Since the sun was setting, you might ordinarily think that the temperature should become cooler. True, the temperature at the rim was falling. But, for every 1000 feet I descended, I was gaining five degrees in temperature (which exceeded the cooling effect due to the setting of the sun). For the last three miles, the heat was stifling. I stripped down to my swim suit. I was covered with sweat. At the banks of the Colorado River, I had descended 5500 feet below my starting point, and the air temperature was 28 degrees higher due to the elevation effect.
From this experience, I can safely suggest that Moses did not go to the top of Mt. Sinai in a single day. Given that he was 80 years old at the time, I would be surprised if he went up more than two thousand feet. A temperature change of 10 degrees could be seen as normal, especial because he was a slow climber. When I descended into the Canyon, I was quite fit and 32 years old. I was also descending on a well-worn switch-back trail that made my progress even easier.
This thought experiment was done by way of illustrating why the temperature effect and the change of air pressure went unnoticed during the entire biblical period. Thus, it was entirely normal that no one was worried about Jesus when he was taken up on a cloud into heaven (Acts 1:11). When these texts are read today by scientifically-informed readers, it is only natural that concerns about Jesus’ safety will arise. "Poor Jesus," my twelve-year-old daughter says to me, "he must have been frozen solid before he got to 7500 feet."
Part 2: Was Jesus using a cloud-taxi during his ascension?
"Every belief works in the mind of the believer" (Michael Polanyi).
The biblical writers see clouds as God’s swift chariot (cf. also Ps. 18:9; 104:3; Isa. 19:1; Dan. 7:13; Nah. 1:3; 1 Thess. 4:17). If we stop to reflect on this, we can imagine that people who never had the opportunity to fly in an airplane as it passed near or through clouds might easily be persuaded that clouds were quite substantial and easily able to transport their passengers. When meeting with Moses on Mount Sinai, God uses a cloud to hide himself from Moses, lest he see his face and die (Exod 33:19-20). The tacit assumption here is that God uses a cloud to travel from his throne in heaven to Mount Sinai. Cloaked in the same cloud, God hides his face. Likewise, when Jesus’ return is mentioned elsewhere, he is presenting as making use of cloud-transport (Matt. 24:30; 26:64; Mark 13:26; 14:62; Luke 21:27; 1 Thess. 4:17; Rev. 1:7).
This thought experiment was done by way of illustrating how archaic science undergirds the events of the bible. Even God and Jesus had to make use of cloud-taxis. When we read the bible on a transatlantic flight, we never think of how our Boeing 747 cuts right through clouds. The biblical translators had no idea how to get the archaic science out of these texts. So, what did they do? They kept the archaic "swift chariots" just as the ancient text would have it and they hoped that no one would notice how "scientifically absurd" they were being.
My twelve-year old daughter says to me, "Poor Jesus! He's up to 5000 feet when he notices that there are only whisps of water vapor supporting him. He immediately gets pulled toward the earth in a free-fall. Yipes! Get him a parachute."
======================================================
I love N.T. Wright and entirely support his reading of Scripture. Wright is not the problem here. The problem is that modern science grew up outside of the seminaries and theological think-tanks. No one thought that modern science had to be taken into account when interpreting the bible. So, my two case studies show how hasardous this approach has become today. Just imagine how some atheist like Richard Dawkins would make mince-meat out of my beloved N.T. Wright just using the two case studies suggested above. This cannot be SOLVED by using a few slick slogans (such as "Put Jesus at the Center, and everything else fits perfectly around Him....) N.T. Wright, I'm calling you to get deeper and to go further on this issue. If you can't do it, I'm afraid no one else can.
JMJ, pray for us,
Aaron Milavec
Scholars qua scholars are definitely not infallible. 🤷🏻♂️
What about the other saviour God stories that are identical to the Jesus Christ?
There are none.
Similar in some important respects, not identical; but that was the last objection of CS Lewis before he converted to Christianity. He finally flipped it around and realized two things: Why should it be that we find people all over the world, without contact to each other, coming up with such similar stories when see describing the ultimate reality and purpose to the world? Isn't that evidence FOR the story in question being a reflection of deep reality rather than evidence that all the stories are false?
And 2nd, he came to believe that unlike the others, Jesus was a real man in real history (no, surprisingly the others do not make this claim) and that He (Jesus) was "the dream" come true. God created man and therefore the dream of Reality is in us. But in Jesus, God became man and realized the dream so that we could see Him as a man.
Ain't one.
@@Brucec-x6r I'm afraid there are none. There are many stories of dying and rising gods or demigods. None identical. And maybe you should be asking why there are so many of these stories? Why is it that this idea , or dream as CS Lewis called them, would come up all over the globe and all throughout history in cultures without contact?
Why is this even up for debate?
Can we trust an ancient story of a failed god, a talking snake and an apple of forbidden knowledge?
Time doesn’t change truth
Talking serpent not snake . And a taking donkey. Parrots can talk by the way . I tend to think the serpent and donkey were supernatural (which the bible is full of)
Actually talking snakes should be supported by evolution, are we not talking apes ? But wait , why are there no apes that can talk ? Hmm
The bible does not mention an apple , a mistake made by people who have not read the Bible or paid attention. It says fruit . And Adam and Eve made aprons out of fig leaves so that might be a clue but it might not , the bible doesn’t say .
Where did God fail ? He gave freewill , it’s up to us to use it correctly, otherwise you have to make robots that can’t love
What you can trust is God Himself . He will reveal Himself personally to you once you repent and put your faith in His Son
Then once you KNOW God personally you will trust his Words , character and integrity
Can we trust the Qur'an ?
I hope it is true in every detail.
Especially the fate of non-believers. (surah 4:56)
An intriguing statement about the fate of non-believers in Surah An-Nisa 4.56. However, more intriguing is Surah (ch.) 4.157: "...and for boasting, “We killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of Allah.” But they [the Jewish leaders] neither killed nor crucified him-it was only made to appear so.(note 1) Even those who argue for this ˹crucifixion˺ are in doubt. They have no knowledge whatsoever-only making assumptions. They certainly did not kill him." Note 1 does not disclose the real reason for the claims that Jesus was spared crucifixion. But, in the commentary on the Quran, it is JUDAS who is crucified--not Jesus. Even in Islamic doctrine, Jesus is taken up into the heavens by God (although spared from being killed). So whether Jesus did die and rise again, or spared from death: in both cases He is taken up into the heavens. In both the NT and Quran, Jesus is claimed to the the Word of God (Arabic: kalimatu-Allah), and will return to judge the world. 🙂
The Bible is full of contradictions, archeological and historical inaccuracies, and logical fallacies. It’s a nice book, it cannot be taken literally. Since it can’t be taken literally, it is open to interpretation and is therefore fallible.
Nice bunch of claims, care to provide evidence to support them?
Being literal and being inerrant aren't same thing.
@@vngelicath1580 True, but you need to read the passages in the way they were meant to be read & Genesis 1-11 is, like the rest of the book, historical narrative.
Your problem is you don’t know God (but you can if your willing )
If you knew God you would trust His Words
My favourite infallible part of the New Testament is the dedication at the start of Luke.
He sarcastically states that he's writing his gospel because the other gospels are innacurate.
Sort of like a Zen Kone. Bring me the sound of one fundamentalist crying ...
I thought Luke was saying he writing an ‘orderly account’, in other words, sequential rather than thematic. Where do you get the concept of ‘inaccurate’. Are there places in Luke where you would say he writes something different and is bringing an ‘accurate’ correction to Matthew or Mark?
You can trust the Bible; you just can't trust a Calvinist's interpretation of it.
σ(^_^;)? It's not moral for God to get fame by being outlandish. That makes the Bible suspicious.
i have a high view of Shakespeare plays...are they infallible or even accurate..answer : Not likely. Same for the bible which was cobbled together by various catholic clergy one thousand years earlier. (more or less)
Stop interrupting Tom's answers. It's not about the moderator. Often Tom ties up his point and just before finishing, another question or comment is offered.
I found it to be a terrific interview, a respectful interchange of thoughts and ideas.
Oh dear
Where are the true shepherds today 😭
As always waffling complexity
LOL
NO
Where’s the book of Enoch? WTH was wrong with it?
Book of Thomas?
Asking “can we trust the Bible” is not any different than asking, can we trust the Lord Of The Rings.
Correct: if one trusts the Bible and one trusts Lord of the Rings--meaning they are real products, have physical copies, and have movies about said subjects--then perhaps one is a fan of both. And the question is...?
I respect and study the bible but why doesn't anyone explain the contradictions in Jesus actual teachings in the Gospels. Depending which gospel Jesus wants his disciples to follow the Torah and in others he clearly doesn't or he cherry picks
How about you name a single contradiction? Because the example you listed doesn't sound like a contradiction at all. Jesus didn't come to abolish the old ways, he preached the ten commandments and fulfilled the old prophecies. But the Jewish people had become too asinine about the codes, following them to the letter instead of understanding their purpose, eg. chastising Jesus for a minimal amount of work on the Sabbath.
@@conorowens8382 lol what do you actually think there are only ten commandments? He actually didn't fulfil the prophecy of Isiah the Messiah was supposed to become king. Just compare Mark to Luke or John you get completely different messages from Jesus. By the Jewish people I assume you mean the Pharisees because Jesus was Jewish and his disciples and all the original Christians.
@@RichardGeresGerbil when did I say there were only ten commandments in the Old Testament? I was clearly referring to the famous commandments outlined in Exodus and Deuteronomy, commonly known as the ten commandments (despite the fact you could technically count them a number of different ways). Stop being so pedantic, it doesn't make you look smarter.
And yes, obviously Jesus and his disciples were Jewish. When did I ever suggest otherwise? Again, you're acting like I said something contradictory to compensate for the lack of an actual argument.
You keep saying there were massive contradictions in what Jesus said. So again I ask you, how about you name a single specific one?
@RichardGeresGerbil I've just read all the gospels recently - not quite sure what differences you're alluding to... can you be more specific?
@@Linalo18 are you serious come on you found nothing? Jesus preaches to follow Moses law better than the Pharisees in one gospel then undermines many of the laws in the others. There are so many stupid contradictions like when did Jesus die I give you a hint before or after passover I'm genuinely curious
Saying the Bible is inerrant isn't defensive, it is stating the fact. The Bible is the words of God, God is speaking. Genesis 1-11 is historical narrative, it is six days of Creation, repeated in Exodus 20. I would question how Wright believes the resurrection if Genesis isn't correct. I'm afraid NT Wright is simply unreliable as a Bible teacher, just as so many CoE clergy are influenced by the spirit of the age.
What does Genesis have to do with the resurrection? Genesis could be entirely mythical (it almost certainly is) and man still be fallen and need a savior. Your argument doesn’t follow.
I’m afraid you’re simply uneducated and incorrect. There’s almost absolutely no way of studying Genesis in depth and coming out thinking the ancient author is trying to give us a historical scientific account of material creation. You’ve lost your mind. I’m a Christian Btw
Good grief, YECism isn't the litmus test for orthodoxy, the resurrection is.
@@EchoP7596 Without Genesis you do not have the basis for God's authority, or the explanation as to why Man needs salvation & hence the resurrection. Genesis is the foundation of Christianity, you cannot be a Christian without it, it certainly isn't mythical.
@@vngelicath1580 Accepting the whole of the Bible tests your orthodoxy, rather than relying on pseudoscience.
How can you believe in the Resurrection without believing God's description of His Creation, and without the Fall there is no need for the resurrection.
Can we trust people who tell us we can't trust the Bible?
"Can we trust the bible?" Given there's no god, that question seems a bit irrelevant.
thanks for stopping by. You are on the right path by hearing the Gospel.
We can trust the Holy Bible KJV, the NT truth as witness to all OT prophecy fulfilled, but we cannot trust Christianity which is the false teaching mentioned by Paul.
What about Christianity is false?
@@martinploughboy988 There was no atonement at the Cross though Christianity has many theories, the NT was witness to all prophecy fulfilled there is no futurism, there was no 'Original Sin', like Judaism and Islam, Christianity is not legitimate as it does not follow the Torah of Abraham.
Paul spends his time preaching the gospel of salvation and the Torah of Abraham, to so-called believers who thought grace was a licence to sin. Christianity was already being falsely taught, as Paul did not start Christianity, he spoke that only doers of the law shall be justified.
It's fascinating stuff all in my draft book, but offering 30 videos breaking down false teaching subject by subject.
@@simonskinner1450 What a load of twaddle. Paul makes it perfectly clear to believers that God's grace isn't a licence to sin:
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
(Romans 6:1-2)
Of course the Torah was written by Moses, not Abraham.
@@martinploughboy988 yes Paul makes it clear they must not sin to those following s false gospel, but Christianity many believe Jesus paid for their sins, being under grace not the jurisdiction of the law.
The Torah was given to Abraham in the religion of the Israelites, an amended version was given to Moses due to sin, as you will find Genesis is in the Torah but Moses is not in Genesis.
@@simonskinner1450 So where is the evidence that "Torah was given to Abraham"? The Torah comprises the first five books, & Moses is certainly in those.
So what do you think the true gospel is, how is someone made righteous before God.
God is a fiction. Citing it is a mistake.
So sorry that is how you feel, advice be open minded but don’t leave your brain at the door
@@Aquines "So sorry that is how you feel, advice be open minded but don’t leave your brain at the door" My mind is always open to falsifiable evidence. It also recognises absurd claims when it encounters them.
Yes, we can trust the Bible. We just can‘t trust your translation, Tom.
Not a fan?
@@thegreatballplayer1 I‘m usually not a fan of people who cannot or will not speak clearly about their beliefs and are guilty of obfuscation.
Question: to whom does Tom refer (N. T. Wright?).
@@abirdynumnum9612 Yep
Nobody in the Bible had a bible
And ..Nobody in the Bible Ring a bell 🔔 for call to pray ....and Nobody in the Bible worship man 👨 on a cross
Your a rather dim fellow. The old testament was well documented and copies into Greek and Latin from the Aramaic Hebrew scrolls available. Even Jesus quoted scriptures and characters from them.
@Minimmalmythicist
Only a foolish person who knows little of the facts would say that. What is interesting though, is you didn't say how much later, nor by who, and your sarcasm is ridiculous.
Keep this in mind, the gospels were pre 70 AD, so were some of the letters acts going forward. The temples destruction by Titus, prophecy by Jesus within 40 years, a generation not passing , and believers fleeing Jerusalem to the mountains, not going back into homes to pack up as warned when news of the Romans coming. They got the memo, it was faxed. Emailed and set in stone.
@Minimmalmythicistlol no it wasn’t.
@Minimmalmythicist
Where are all the books that didn’t make the canon? Why were they ignored/rejected?
@Minimmalmythicist The canon is the nature of the books, not a decision of men.
Jesus and his dad are nor good communicators even though the have magical powers..look at the mess the world is in religiously...amen
Well spoken my friend. I 100% agree 👍
The Bible explains why the world is in such a mess & tells us God's solution.
Is there a question here that might help the viewer/reader? (Statements are easily made; questions are better)
Na mate
It’s clear to those who are willing to hear it
Don’t you know why Jesus spoke in parables ?
Why should we think the Bible represents anything but people's best guess at what they THINK God is?
Psalms 14:1.
@@josevalverde7431 That's not very convincing.
Question: who does "we" represent? Are you asking about people in general? Or a specific question about the biblical writers?
Slippin' Tom: talks a lot but says almost nothing.
😅
The bible is an interesting work of fiction. That said its stories provide great comfort for the weak minded and those with dreadful lives.
A weak minded comment.
What books do you recommend for those who are not weak minded or who do not have dreadful lives? Can you help the reader understand "dreadful"?
The problem with Wright's religious views is that they are merely opinion. As valid as any other, of course, but neither truth nor fact. With one negative exception.
Any claim of infallibility for the bible is simply false. We can and have proven that. Wright is smart enough to know this but he chooses not to allow reality to interfere with his beliefs. That's his choice and his right but when trying to convince others, it is dishonest to pretend beliefs are facts.
@Minimmalmythicist Not really sure what Christianity offers that cant be found elsewhere, without the necessity to believe the impossible without evidence, but I do think there is much to be found in the bible once we stop pretending it is the word of God.
No moral guidance of course and certainly nothing true in the earlier myths but literature, an insight into how men thought back then and a tiny amount of history in the later stories. We can even see hints of the socio-political climates of the various times covered by authors that caused the compilation and writing of the Hebrew bible.
The one fact that is thoroughly clear, is that you, like sooooo many others, have not faith, so may not be called since b4 the foundations of the earth by name. Sadly, here's my commiserations , have an 🎉.😂.
@@SteveWarlee I thank you for your commiserations. Unfortunately, you cannot show that what you have faith in is true.
To not have faith is merely to say, show me the evidence. Why is that wrong?
Why would your God create a reality with no clear indications of his presence and then hide from us?
And why would he then condemn us for not believing because he is so good at hiding?
Does that make any sense to you?
It seems like the unjust action of tyrant to me. If it were true.
@MinimmalmythicistYour name takes away all credibility from anything you say.
Who has proved any part of the Bible to be false?
NO
Christianity is not legitimate as it is the false teaching in the epistles, and divorced the Torah of Abraham. I have Ytube videos 'Myths in so-called Christianity'.
Hebrews 8:8-13 CSB
But finding fault with his people, he says: See, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah - not like the covenant that I made with their ancestors on the day I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. I showed no concern for them, says the Lord, because they did not continue in my covenant.] For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. And each person will not teach his fellow citizen, and each his brother or sister, saying, “Know the Lord,” because they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them. For I will forgive their wrongdoing, and I will never again remember their sins. By saying a new covenant, he has declared that the first is obsolete. And what is obsolete and growing old is about to pass away.
God tears the veil in the temple at Christ's death and then a short 3 decades later destroys the temple. Access to God is through Christ, not Judaism
@@acts-me8xr The NT has the truth, but Christianity does not, please note Paul complained of false teaching, well he was talking about Christianity.
I am CofE but find the Reformation was Gnostic, and not much better before, but we do have Jesus, Paul and John to fall back on. My videos break down the false teachings one by one.
It is interesting that you deny Judaism but God's laws remain, and those actually baptised have the laws in their hearts, not to recite but to argue in their consciences. Paul says born again believers are born again Jews, so did Jesus, the new covenant is the fulfilment of the covenants of Abraham and Moses.
@@simonskinner1450 Paul complaining about the false teaching was actually specifically in regards to Jews who were trying to water down the gospel by saying that not only did a person have to believe the gospel but they had to follow all of the Old testament ceremonial laws to be right with God. Circumcision was being one of them. Romans chapter 10 verse 4 says
"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes, "
Christ himself said he did not come to nullify the law but rather he is the fulfillment of it. For the person who is in Christ Jesus the righteousness of the law has been perfected by the finished work of Jesus.
So the Old testament is by no means done away with for the Christian believer rather the Old testament is done away with in terms of trying to be made right with God through it and keeping it. The New testament makes it clear that the law was given as a schoolmaster to point us to our need of Christ. The law was given to show us our sinfulness not so that we can follow it to be justified before God. The only one who has or will ever follow the law perfectly is Jesus Christ and that is why sinners like us need him. I believe that the whole book of Hebrews is written for this very reason. To show how the New covenant is better than the old covenant and how it makes it obsolete. It also points to how Jesus is the fulfillment of all of the Old testament promises as well as the keeping of the law perfectly. As far as born again believers being considered Jews on fine with that. Because I believe the Bible makes it clear that there has been one people of God throughout the both old and New testament. The Bible says that a person is not a Jew because of ethnicity but rather because of the circumcision of the heart, which is another way of saying a person that has been born again by the power of the Holy Spirit. I believe dispensationalism where they try to distinctly separate Israel from the church is grossly incorrect and causes not only a division of God's people through the Old and New testament but also they take it to the extent sometimes even to say that the gospel of Paul is different from the gospel of Jesus and the kingdom of God is different from the kingdom of heaven etc.
@@simonskinner1450 Judaizer!
F No, next.
You know you don't have to watch these videos, right?
Life is easy when you can so easily unplugg your brain, isn't it?😁
@@Linalo18 He didn't. He just saw the title, made the comment, and left.
F yes. Just because something is way above your comprehension, or ability to digest, don't make matters worse by showing it to everyone.
@@SteveWarlee huh?